Actually very similar, GitHub was also early in talking about Continuous AI. I think the biggest difference is that Continue is very focused on the use case of checks and gets a lot of the small details right that really matter because it's not built for generic non-AI CI workflows
Some of these are:
- Having a local experience to run them with Claude Code, etc.
- Making it easy to accept/reject suggested changes
- A single folder dedicated to just checks so you don't have to think about triggers
- Built-in feedback loops so you can tune your checks with feedback
- Metrics so you can easily track which have a high suggestion / merge rate
alt Hacker News
Actually very similar, GitHub was also early in talking about Continuous AI. I think the biggest difference is that Continue is very focused on the use case of checks and gets a lot of the small details right that really matter because it's not built for generic non-AI CI workflows
Some of these are:
- Having a local experience to run them with Claude Code, etc.
- Making it easy to accept/reject suggested changes
- A single folder dedicated to just checks so you don't have to think about triggers
- Built-in feedback loops so you can tune your checks with feedback
- Metrics so you can easily track which have a high suggestion / merge rate
Are you using a lot of `gh-aw`?